E'ville SWAT raids innocent grandma after neighbor uses her wireless [VIDEO]

[Destro]

If the ip addy had come back to Starbucks, would they have still have punched the door?

If the cops are going to base a warrant of an IP addy, I think it is basic due diligence to see if it is a router on an public network. But then again, maybe I'm expecting too much?

Just because it shows up unlocked on the list, does not mean it is unsecure, you would need to actually connect to it to make sure it is actually unsecure....which w/o a warrant would be a 4th ammendment violation.

 

[j706]

It looks like they pushed their knock wait time a little bit. Other than that and considering what the search warrant for for I think the SWAT raid was reasonable. Had the home been the home of a homicidal bomber then would the raid have been reasonable? I say yes although I know the cop haters of INGO will never think so.

Maybe someone could have done a little more investigating. But you can't fault the guys who did the search warrant service for the investigation. They are going off of what the investigators came up with.

 

[rambone]

Ms. Milan added that she believes the raid was about retribution and intimidation moreso than genuine concern for officer safety regarding the online postings. “I believe that they were showing us that because ‘you’ threaten us, we’re going to let you know that you can’t threaten us and get away with it. Just high-fiving… They were having a show of force.”

 

[rob63]

Sitting in my home as I type this one of my neighbors has a wireless network named xfinitywifi with no password protection. There is also a second network available to me that only has wep security, which is notoriously easy to break. I would bet that you could find an unsecured network in pretty much any neighborhood anywhere. Exceptionally shoddy investigative work that deserves to be punished.

I don't have a problem with the raid itself. They handled it well considering that for all they knew they were going to be dealing with someone dangerous.

 

[Fargo]

Just because it shows up unlocked on the list, does not mean it is unsecure, you would need to actually connect to it to make sure it is actually unsecure....which w/o a warrant would be a 4th ammendment violation.

And if you already have PC off the ip addy, that is one telephonic or walk through away.

 

[Destro]

And if you already have PC off the ip addy, that is one telephonic or walk through away.

But in the end it really proves nothing.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

One might think the officers might have looked at an in car laptop to see if that ip addy was on an unsecured network, but then again one would be wrong.

Ain't nobody got time to gather intel man , they're swat , they gotta roll ! Especialy against someone that runs their mouth on the webs **** freedom of speech !

 

[hornadylnl]

This stuff won't end until people start returning the favor to officers properties.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Um, yeah, a little chat. An officer that can read basic nonverbal cues should be able to determine that the confused granny isn't some kind of terror mastermind. There are simply too many ways, as demonstrated by this incident, that things can be a lot different than they seem. The victims here deserve their stuff replaced/repaired at no expense to them, compensation for their inconvenience, terror, theft of their dignity, and some punitive damages against those guilty of violating them (not the city) to provide a lesson in restraint.

 

[Fargo]

But in the end it really proves nothing.

No, if it's unsecured it is likely/possible that there isn't PC to punch the door just off the ip. This would require further investigation and likely spare innocent people from their home being invaded and guns pointed at them.

We wouldn't want that though, would we?

 

[hornadylnl]

No, if it's unsecured it is likely/possible that there isn't PC to punch the door just off the ip. This would require further investigation and likely spare innocent people from their home being invaded and guns pointed at them.

We wouldn't want that though, would we?

Further investigation only means more work for the officers. Why would they spend the extra time when they can just bust in doors and have zero accountability when they get it wrong. You break it, you buy it doesn't apply to government employees.

 

[rambone]

Their jovial demeanor following the raid tells me they weren't too concerned about getting it wrong.

Not my job. Not my problem. Its somebody else's fault.

 

[rambone]

I don't have a problem with the raid itself. They handled it well considering that for all they knew they were going to be dealing with someone dangerous.

There are so many people running their mouths on the internet, that becomes a dangerous proposition.

What if police bust down a door and find out a 12-year-old was the "serious" threat? And in the process an entire family gets guns in their faces, or worse. Is that OK?

How about if the homeowner -- who has absolutely no idea the police are breaking in -- pulls out a shotgun to protect his family? What could go wrong?

No-knock raids, if they are ever used, need to be held to incredibly high levels of scrutiny. That did not happen.

 

[Fargo]

There are so many people running their mouths on the internet, that becomes a dangerous proposition.

What if police bust down a door and find out a 12-year-old was the "serious" threat? And in the process an entire family gets guns in their faces, or worse. Is that OK?

How about if the homeowner -- who has absolutely no idea the police are breaking in -- pulls out a shotgun to protect his family? What could go wrong?

No-knock raids, if they are ever used, need to be held to incredibly high levels of scrutiny. That did not happen.

From what I see, this was not a no-knock but rather a normal warrant where the knock and announce rule was violated as reasonable time was not given to open the door.

If memory serves, that in itself is actionable in court, although oddly enough it does not trigger the exclusionary rule. I would think that violation is the plaintiff's most likely chance of proving a non-immunized violation, although I dunno what damages you can show.

 

[hornadylnl]

From what I see, this was not a no-knock but rather a normal warrant where the knock and announce rule was violated as reasonable time was not given to open the door.

If memory serves, that in itself is actionable in court, although oddly enough it does not trigger the exclusionary rule. I would think that violation is the plaintiff's most likely chance of proving a non-immunized violation, although I dunno what damages you can show.

Is the city not responsible for paying for the damages to her house?

 

[Fargo]

Is the city not responsible for paying for the damages to her house?

It is my understanding that they already have.

 

[tenring]

Reminiscent of the Gestapo raiding a home where suspected Jewish people lived.

 

[Fargo]

Reminiscent of the Gestapo raiding a home where suspected Jewish people lived.

Uh, not really.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

What if police bust down a door and find out a 12-year-old was the "serious" threat? And in the process an entire family gets guns in their faces, or worse. Is that OK? .

Pretty sure this already happened about a year ago with a 16 year old Tennessee boy . IIRC , no knock at midnight and the boy was held for a couple weeks under NDAA , turned out someone hacked his phone . Oh well , tough **** for him and his family .

 

[ViperJock]

If they are going in hot they really should have more proof that the bad guy is present. This is amateur hour police work. I guess they can't afford surveillance of the home since they spent all their money on GI Surplus. This would be akin to a surgeon saying, "uh yeah I know I cut the wrong leg off but I knew there was a dead leg in here somewhere so I'm not really responsible for this."